You can't expect reforms made in the seventies to constrain intelligence agencies indefinitely. The Church Committee imposed real, effective limits on domestic surveillance that it took the best part of three decades to weasel out of. Why not do it again, and do it more regularly?
You seem to be arguing that because the Church Committee didn't fix the problem of government overreach once and for all, it accomplished nothing.
Because this is ultimately a social problem. You're not going to make conflict or oppression obsolete with encryption; even if a tyrrannical government can't get any actionable information out of someone it perceives as an antagonist, it may feel free to abuse or torture people simply to keep the rest of the population in line - by terrorizing some people and catering by proxy to the sadistic instincts of others.Many different societies are quite happy to tolerate viciously oppressive governments as long as the oppression is concentrated upon a distinct minority population.
The popular show "24" in its most recent season made the express decision to demonize hackers and glorify the use of drones in combat. I implore you to watch the first episode of the last season, where a masculine Jack Bauer is depicted breaking a pale, radical-looking emo hacker out of an underground torture facility in Britain.
Minutes later, Bauer expresses disappointment with the hacker for aiding WikiLeaks. I'd love to pretend they really are losing their creative edge, but the average person tacitly accepts the messaging without question. It's product placement, pure and simple. The psychological seed is being sown.
This is why you need to start telling everyone you know to use Tor. If you're capable of getting people to use your shitty consumer applications then you can use your skills to get them to do the right thing.
Funny, I've been binge watching all seasons recently. It's entertaining and pretty well executed.
And it's so obvious and effective propaganda material (and they made 9(!) seasons of it to keep these brains washed) - produced following "Fox News" guidelines, one would conclude.
The central and repeated message is:
1. Terrorists are everywhere
2. Total surveillance is therefor necessary and must be reinforced, not cut back
3. Torture is not nice, but it mostly works and must therefor be maintained
4. Leaking of classified information is in any case a serious crime that can never be justified
And then, we wonder why approximately 50% of the US population think Snowden is a traitor.
Because political power can make certain technologies illegal, or constrain their implementation. For example, encryption is not much use if the law mandates that the government gets a copy of every private key. This was really proposed in the 1990s and thankfully defeated through political pressure.
To have the best defense of our freedoms, we need both. We need to be vigilant in the political system and in the courts to protect our rights, and we need to be using the best technical means--and developing better technical means--to protect our privacy not only from overreaching governments but also from careless private businesses and common criminals.
Because humans are always the weakest link in any security mechanism. In the context of the government spying on you, it doesn't matter if you encrypt all your communication. The government can still force you (and/or your friends and loved ones) to give them what they want, and do it in a way that is completely secret (e.g. gag orders). When viewed in this light, encryption is simply an inconvenience for them.
Well, it's not as if all the FISA judges are themselves appointed by a single judge, or anything. They're trying to meet us halfway. Let's be reasonable here.
You seem to be arguing that because the Church Committee didn't fix the problem of government overreach once and for all, it accomplished nothing.